March 1989, Page 33

Other People's Mail

"Gentlemen don't read other people's mail," an Idealistic American official exclaimed between World Wars I and II as he abolished US cryptographic counterintelligence programs. Times change, however, and some letters by or to other people are as Informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves.

North: Whose Hero Anyway?

To the Editor, Register Star: Dec. 1, 1988

After reading Pat Cunningham's column on Oliver North, I feel more than upset. A pardon for North?

You must understand and, most of all, remember 241 Marines were killed by an Iranian-backed extremist. Perhaps it never entered his mind that any or all of those arms could be used against Americans. Perhaps it really doesn't come under aid and comfort to an enemy.

I wonder how he would be judged by a jury of his peers on a charge like that? It's a shame the jury will never be picked from those 241 Marines who never returned.

When I was a member of the Marine Corps, I understood the value of every Marine's life. So, I find it very difficult trying to understand how this person could ever be a hero or thought of as one.

E.P. O'Neill, Rockford, IL.

Israel's Doubtful Strategic Views

To the Editor, Star Tribune:Dec. 11, 1988

A Dec. 4 letter argues that "fear of Communist control" is "the motivating factor behind US aid to Israel" and that aid to Israel "hopefully will eliminate the need to ever send American soldiers to fight in (the Middle East)." Tell that to the US Marines killed in 1982. President Reagan ostensibly deployed them as a peacekeeping force but in reality they safeguarded the Israeli military flank on the Mediterranean while Ariel Sharon raped West Beirut and Muslim regions in Lebanon.

US aid to Israel is based on supposed shared values (political, social, religious)—i.e., the Judeo-Christian values, not on military strategic factors. Unhappily, Israeli military savagery in Lebanon and her brutality, even today, against the Palestinians has revealed, the realistic fact of her sense of values.

To return to the letter writer's thesis: First, most of Israel's weaponry is paid for by the American taxpayer. Second, her vaunted military superiority is limited to a very small area of the Middle East. However, geography and logistics preclude Israel from assisting America's security in the vital regions—i.e., Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates.

Only American forces can assume such an awesome military burden. Witness the recent presence of US armed forces in the Persian Gulf. Where was Israel?

Alfred J. Hotz, Sioux Falls, SD.

Cease US Aid to Israel

To the Editor, Tulsa World: Dec. 11, 1988

I read with interest Leo Hurewitz's comment that spots on a leopard do not change, referring to Arafat. I suppose by the same reasoning he has a similar opinion of former Israeli Prime Minister Begin and the current Prime Minister Shamir, since they were terrorists in the 40s. But in my opinion, Israel has become a terrorist state—bulldozing and blowing up people's homes, killing people who throw rocks, and conducting air strikes when it pleases them.

Our government should immediately stop ail financial aid to Israel until the Israelis show the same concern for the human rights of the Palestinian people as they do for the Jews in the Soviet Union.

Lloyd Vinnedge, Glenpool, OK.

No More Respect for a Nation of Hoodlums

To the Editor, Denver Post: Dec. 15, 1988

After watching the TV news and reading the papers, I have come to the conclusion that I no longer support or respect Israel. I feel that its people have learned nothing from their past. Everything that they are inflicting on the Palestinians, they had done unto them. I hate hearing about suppression, deportation, and the murdering of children, no matter where they are happening.

I have visited the concentration camps of Europe and felt a great shame and sorrow.

Now I feel that shame for a nation that my country feels can do no wrong. Well, in the eyes of this American, Israel is a nation of hoodlums, and I no longer will feel regret for their past. They are no longer victims, but enjoying the holocaust they are inflicting on a race of people who are helpless against them.

Gene Madril, Denver, CO.

Subsidizing Lifestyles

To the Editor, Christian Science Monitor—Feb. 1, 1989

In the article "Land vs. Mideast Peace," Jan. 11, two Americans speak of emigrating to the West Bank for "lifestyle reasons."

At the close of World War II, Americans were persuaded that the sufferings of Jews who had survived the holocaust had been so horrible that they should be Oven a homeland in Palestine, even if it meant the dispossession of the Arabs already living there.

Forty years later, well-educated American professionals who have presumably fled neither persecution nor poverty in their native United States are moving to the West Bank.

Is it right for these Americans to occupy someone else's homeland and contribute to the persecution of the rightful owners? Should the American taxpayer be required to subsidize their lifestyle?"

Bernice L. Youtz, Olympia, WA.

Jews and Israel

To the Editor, San Francisco Examiner: Nov. 11, 1988

When are we Jews going to realize we can be Jews and Americans without being pro-Israel? Among my friends and acquaintances, there has arisen a conspiracy of silence. We do not discuss the Middle East anymore because we are ashamed to admit we have supported with our opinion, our votes, and our taxes a regime that is becoming more and more oppressive to a people who justifiably believe we have stolen their fatherland and now mean to drive them out entirely or use them as a permanent menial underclass. How can we rationalize to ourselves a government that has been killing Palestinians at a ratio of 30-1 in favor of Israelis? That has been imprisoning without trial, and keeping in ghettos and refugee camps a people it should be accommodating in every possible way in order to preserve the ideal of peace and justice?

Why are these words not being spoken aloud by American Jews? Are we so afraid of each other's opinions we will let ourselves be manipulated by respect for the tradition of Zionism, so that in the future non-Jews will be justified in saying we learned our lessons from Hitler too well?

Zionism has committed suicide in Israel. Let us bury the tradition and come to a sense of common humanity. It would be good to be able to feel proud of being Jewish, instead of ashamed of being related to the militaristic bullies who make up the government of Israel,

Sophy Epstein, Guerneville, CA.

Reasonable Response

To the Editor, Lansing State Journal: Dec. 25, 1988

Hurrah for the US! Finally, a reasonable response to Palestinian overtures instead of the automaton refusals we've been giving, against the wishes of our other allies, to please Israel.

Not to downplay Israel's value as an ally, but the Israelis seem to have no regard for any interests beyond their own and care nothing that their actions are creating a South Africa in the Middle East.

The Palestinians have a viable claim to their land and Israel's response is hardly that of a civilized nation. Responding to rocks with bullets and beatings, dynamiting homes, and deporting rightful residents smacks of South Africa or even Nazi policies in the Ukraine in World War II.

If Israel refuses to act reasonably and has no regard for our wishes, why should it receive unquestioning support? Indeed, Israelis seem to think they can dictate foreign policy to us.

In light of all this, it is about time we agreed to talk to the PLO. They seem to be the more rational party.

Brian F. O'Neil, Potterville, Mi.

Jordan Is Not Palestine

To the Editor, Christian Science Monitor—Jan. 24, 1989

After acknowledging King Hussein's long and dedicated efforts to achieve peace, the opinion-page column "Palestine Rock Rolls Back on Jordan," Jan. 9, then turns around and clothes Jordan in ulterior motives of self-interest.

The column uses contrived argument in an effort to place Jordanians and Palestinians—instead of Israelis and Palestinians—on opposite sides of the dispute over Palestine. Regardless of any attempt at clever analysis, the fact remains that the uprising in the West Bank and Gaza erupted as an ultimate protest against 21 years of oppressive Israeli occupation. .

The definition of a state as "a legal concept existing on a territory within defined boundaries, organized under common political institutions, and having an effective government" is bent out of line and clearly intended to support the myth of "Jordan is Palestine" created by Israeli hard-liners and their supporters. There is only one territory that the Palestinians "lay claim to": the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. To suggest that Jordanian territory is also open to Palestinian claim simply because Palestinian Jordanians live there shows a disturbing disregard for Jordan's sovereignty and grossly distorts Palestinian aspirations.

Since 1923, Jordan has been internationally recognized as a legal, independent, sovereign state "existing on a territory within defined boundaries, organized under common political institutions, and having an effective government. " While Israel is internationally recognized as a sovereign state, it still lacks the essential element of defined boundaries. This is the core of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute: recognition by Israel of the national rights of the Palestinians over their own land.

Hussein A. Hammami, Ambassador of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Washington, DC.

The Palestinian Menace Has Been Exaggerated

To the Editor, New York Times.- Jan. 19, 1989

In "The Anointing of Arafat," A.M. Rosenthal equated creation of an independent Palestinian state with the destruction of Israel (column, Dec. 20). Such a proposition does not appear remotely possible in the military realities of the Middle East.

One argument used by Israel's apologists for continued United States support is Israel's military might. If tomorrow morning the West Bank and Gaza Strip became independent Palestine, how many fewer battle tanks or combat planes would Israel possess? Would there be fewer Israeli missiles or Israeli atom bombs? Would the Israeli army lose half of its strength?

Could a new Palestine arm openly? Could the Palestinians build training camps for the needed thousands of soldiers? Build airfields for jet fighters? Hold maneuvers with hundreds of armored fighting vehicles? Practice artillery bombardment? Or mobilize its forces without Israel striking first?

Could a new Palestine arm clandestinely? Sandwiched between Israel and Jordan, how would it sneak in hundreds of 70-ton tanks? How many jet-plane-sized crates could be smuggled into Palestine before suspicion is aroused? How do you train thousands of troops at night without detection? How are the logistics for modern battle achieved without discovery?

If it is guerrilla warfare that Mr. Rosenthal fears, then, are lightly armed bands of fighters a real threat to the existence of Israel? Would bands of guerrillas go undetected before an attack? Wouldn't the most powerful country in the Middle East take immediate action after the first large-scale border crossing? Would the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip risk eventual retaliation or possible re-occupation by Israel?

Rejecting the idea of pressuring Israel to negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization because establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip means the destruction of Israel is not a valid argument. Such a Palestinian menace could not materialize either overtly or covertly. The obstacle is not Israel's talking to Yasser Arafat, but the Israeli leadership's unwillingness to concede the injustice done the Palestinian people and to agree to formation of an independent Arab Palestine.

Joseph Elias, Wilkes-Barre, PA.

Peace and Ploys

To the Editor, New York Times: Jan. 19, 1989

Shimon Peres, Israel's finance minister, makes an appeal for peace in "Ballots, Not Bullets, for the West Bank" (Op-Ed, Dec. 2 1) that could best be described with the words he used to dismiss Yasser Arafat's acceptance of Israel: an "exercise in public relations" (news story, Dec. 8).

To state that the Israelis have long recognized the legitimate rights of the Palestinians is an allegation that none but the most hardened supporters of Israel would accept these days. We have all witnessed on television the scenes of unarmed men, women, and children being shot and beaten, houses being demolished, and orchards uprooted.

Amnesty International's 1988 reports on Israeli human rights abuses cite cases of beatings and torture of Palestinians in prison, arrests without charge, and deportations without trial. In the last year alone more than 100 Palestinian charities have been shut down, scores of trade unions and professional societies banned, and schools and universities closed.

More harmful to the prospect of stability in the Middle East, though, is the Peres claim that a Palestinian negotiating partner "remains elusive." While the Palestine Liberation Organization has been recognized by the entire world, including the United States, as the legitimate Palestinian negotiating partner, Israel righteously insists on talking, as Mr. Peres puts it, to "Palestinians who represent their people in a non-violent way."

Why then, does the Israeli government continue to imprison and deport Palestinian professionals and intellectuals who advocate a peaceful settlement? Faisal Husseini, who used to head the Arab Studies Center in Jerusalem, and who spoke out in favor of peace before a meeting of the Israeli group Peace Now, has been held in administrative detention without trial since last July. Tyseer Aruri, professor of physics at Bir Zeit University, who signed a symbolic peace treaty endorsed by dozens of Israeli and Palestinian writers, artists, and academics, is fighting deportation orders.

After the shock of United States recognition of the PLO, the Israelis are scrambling to define a new plan so as not to appear opposed to peace. But the absurdity of Mr. Peres' call for elections "conducted in an atmosphere of tranquility and ... total non-interference" is highlighted by the daily brutality of Israel's military presence in the occupied territories and the continued incarceration of more than 6,000 Palestinians.

One wishes Mr. Peres' words of peace were not simply a public relations ploy, but Israeli policy suggests otherwise. As Yehoshafat Harkabi, former 'chief of Israeli military intelligence, writes in the book Israel's Fateful Hour, "Today, any demand for a settlement without the PLO is equivalent to demanding no settlement."

Kate Seelye, manager of media relations, American-Arab AntiDiscrimination Committee, New York, NY.